americans believed interracial marriage was wrong and illegal on moral grounds. just as marriage was once defined as only being valid between a white man and a white woman, some now argue that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. or that the love expressed in the same-sex marriage is against the laws of god and nature. that was the argument used by judge leon m.bazil in 195 wh9 w he sentenced an interracial couple to a year in jail for the high crime of being married. in his rule he said "almighty god created the races, white, black, yellow, malay and red and placed them on separate continents. there would be no such cause for these marriages. the fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." now, in its landmark loving v. virginia decision, the united states supreme court actually recognized in 1967 that the very

existence of laws preventing interracial marriage was discriminatory because these laws were enacted for the purpose of perpetuating the idea of the supremacy of one race over the other, thereby creating separate classifications of people. the court said, "there's patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of racial discrimination which justifies this classification. the fact that virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons dem stra demonstrates the racial classifications must stand on their own justification as measures designed to maintain white supremacy." this week as the supreme court hears arguments in support of same-sex marriage, 58% of americans young and old, republican and democrat, from the west to the south, support, proudly support same-sex marriage because they recognize that separate is not equal. i loved my grandfather, and when he finally was able to let go of his fear, it actually

strengthened our family. so affirming the right of same-sex couples to marry will strengthen the institution of marriage and strengthen families across america. thanks for watching. i'm karen finney. chris matthews picks things up right now. it's up to the court. let's play "hardball." good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with this. the history of america is being written tonight. the supreme court of this country heard arguments on whether two people of the same sex should be allowed the public recognition of their marriage. this is not a decision about whether two people of the same gender can be sexually intimate. the highest court decided that matter in lawrence v. the state of texas. decided affirmatively. it's not whether citizens of a state in question here, california, can be allowed civil

unions. they have, as have gay couples in eight other states. no. the matter before the supreme court today is neither about sexual relations nor civil unions but about basic human liberty. who you want to be publicly married to. our guests, two men of california, who have been in this debate. governor newsom. thank you very much. gavin, thank you for joining us tonight. it seems to me, observers said the court didn't seem to be in a mood so far at least in arguments prepared to give a sweeping ruling on gay marriage that would effect all 50 states. far likely, experts said, based on what the justices said, would be a narrow outcome. that is according to pete williams the expert in this field. the likely result, one striking down proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative in california that bans same-sex marriage and would allow marriages to resume in california without setting legal precedent for the other 49 states and d.c.

one of the justices being watched closely today is chief justice john roberts. he showed, well, showed he had sympathy for gay marriage critics in california for the critics this time. listen. >> so it's just about -- it's just about the label in this case? >> the label is -- >> same-sex couples have every other right. it's just about the label. >> the label, marriage, means something. even our opponents. >> sure, if you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, i suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend, but it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend. that's, it seems to me, what supporters of proposition 8 are saying here. all you're interested in is the label. you insist on changing the definition of the label. >> wow. gavin newsom. thank you for joining us. >> i didn't get that fully. i was thinking back five years ago when i fell in love, you know, with my wife, now, jen. if i sat on my knee and said, honey, i want to spend the rest of my life with you, will you

civil union me? i'd be here with a scar. the point being, that label means a tremendous amount. that symbol, marriage is what it's about. you can't have something else and call it equal. i mean, that's the whole argument against civil unions. they are something else. with respect to chief justice, i just don't think he gets that. >> that argument was made by our cardinal who has a small group of journalists. the word gay went from fred astaire gay to words change their meanings. >> to say it has no meaning is really crazy, because it's like saying you have all the rights of a citizen, you just can't be called a citizen. >> yeah. >> that's a big difference. you can vote, you can do -- but you're not a citizen of this country. to say that to a group of people that you do not have the same rights and the same privileges and the same equality under the law is just wrong. >> when did you -- i always figured you to be sort of a classic democrat, unhyphenated, regular democrat, politically. you're not a lefty.

i never thought of you -- although we were both with dean, i think. anyway, didn't seem like a lefty. anti a stupid war. when did you get into this emotionally? >> i got into this emotionally when proposition 8 passed, because my good friend, chad griffin, who is the president now of the human rights campaign, is a very, very close friend of mine. i love chad griffin. i've worked with him. he is like a son to me. he was 19 years old when i first met him. he was assigned to me to show me around the white house when i was making "american president." and i came -- he ran my foundation for years. he became very, very close. and he is like a son to me. to look him in the eye, he came to me and said, we have to do something now. when i look at him in the eye, i can't look and say, you are less than me, you deserve less than i do. it's like what rob portman said. he finds out his son is gay.

how do you look your son in the eye and say you don't deserve the same rights that i have? and that's when i became involved. >> you became governor, involved as mayor -- >> no 2004. >> to legitimatize the marriages. >> we had 4,036 couples from 46 states and 8 countries who came into san francisco and got married. rob was one of the first people calling in 2004 celebrating that. he's been at it longer -- >> yes, i was talking about on this particular case. yes, no, i've been involved. >> let's talk about this judge we're all fascinated with. i've always liked anthony kennedy. he's in many ways a libertarian and believer in civil liberties. he certainly seemed to swing today giving sympathetic statements to both sides of the argument. at one point today he talked about the immediate legal injury being done to children of gay parents, if they lose their parents, as parents. let's listen. >> there's substantial -- that there's substance to the point that sociological information is

new. we have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more. on the other hand, there is an immediate legal injury or legal -- what could be a legal injury, and that's the voice of these children. there are some 40,000 children in california, according to the red brief, that live with same-sex parents. and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. the voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think? >> well, maybe he thinks. that's the important thing. he's the judge. anyway, kennedy also warned the case was entering unchartered waters. of course, it is. and questioned whether the case should have even reached the supreme court. maybe it's too fertile ground, too early ground for him. let's listen to his final argument here. >> the problem with the case is that you're really asking, particularly because of the

sociological evidence you cite, for us to go into unchartered waters, and you can play with that metaphor. there's a wonderful destination, or there's a cliff, whatever the metaphor is. but you're doing so in a case where the opinion is very narrow, basically that once the state goes halfway, it has to go all the way or 70% of the way. and you're doing so in a case where there's a substantial question on standing. i just wonder if the case was properly granted. >> here's two options. there's three options, of course. a 50-state basically saying you can't deny the right of a person to marry someone of their own gender. the other option to say basically if you're going to go to civil unions, you can't deny the label, marriage. you can't give all the rights, but neither the honor or celebration of the actual relationship publicly. and the first one is the one that looks like he's heading toward, which is to say, you can't take away a right once given. once recognized, not given, once

recognized. in california. >> that was the ruling that the ninth circuit gave. essentially. which is gays and lesbians have the right to be married. proposition 22 was passed, and it was adjudicated at the california supreme court and the california supreme court said that gays and lesbians have a constitutional right to marry. that's when gavin started holding wedding ceremonies. and then proposition 8 took away that right that was given by the supreme court. so that's the argument that the ninth circuit gave. >> and, chris, the significance of that, that narrow frame of reference, it was also written, from my perspective, to appeal to justice kennedy who had previously adjudicated in a 6-3 decision writing that majority opinion in the romerv. colorado. >> 40,000 children of same-sex couples in your statement. >> it was bringing the human element of this case. talk in academic terms, talk in legalese. talking about human beings here.

to justice kennedy's credit, that was the first time we connected it to what rob and others just mentioned. this is about human dignity, self-worth. human rights, civil rights. to bring the children back in is a good reminder at what's at stake here. it's not just a legal breathe. this is about people. brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, mothers and their sons and daughters. >> you said it. you say it on that promo. i see it all the time on msnbc. the beautiful thing about this country, any time we talk about expanding rights and giving people rights, we do the right thing. >> eventually. >> eventually we do the right thing. because the founders of this country had an idea which is that we should all be considered equal under the law. >> it's a bad word to use in this country, but it's a dialectic at work. a constant fight between the old know-nothings and the segregationists and the slave owners and then the people against the franchising of women, suffrage for women. every one of those fights the liberals have won eventually. >> yeah. dr. king says -- >> called progress. >> toward justice.

ultimately. >> the opponents of same-sex marriage argue the main thrust of their opposition had to do with regulatiting procreation a said gay marriage doesn't lead to procreation, straight marriage does. justice elena kagan asked what would stop a state from allowing marriage licenses to people too old to have children which happens all the time now? that led to this exchange. let's listen. >> your honor, even with respect to couples over the age of 55 it is very rare both parties to the couple are infertile, and the traditional -- >> no, really, bauds ecause if couple -- i can just assure you if both the woman and the man are over the age of 55, there are not a lot of children coming out of that marriage. >> well, that was a chuckle, but it was a point, governor, which is that not everybody marries even with the intent of having children. >> people that are incarcerated

can get married. it's perverse. we got into the sterilization test and whether or not you could sign off and whether or not couples are sterile or fertile. fundamentally, that's the only argument they have, that marriage is about an institution, about procreation. justice kagan made the right point. >> few doubt where justice scalia stands on this issue of fwrks gay marriage. justice scalia had a rather philosophical question. he asked ted olson when it became unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples the right to marry. listen to this great typical scalia exchange. >> when did it become unconstitutional to prohibit gays from marrying? >> that -- they did not assign a date to it, justice scalia, as you know. the court decided it's a case that came before. >> i'm not talking about the california supreme court. i'm talks about your argument. you say it is now

unconstitutional. >> yes. >> was it always unconstitutional? >> it was constitutional when we -- as a culture determined that sexual orientation is is a characteristic that individuals that they cannot control, and that -- >> when did that happen? >> there's no specific date in time. this is an -- >> how am i supposed to know how to decide a case then? >> because the case that's before you -- >> if you can't give me a date when the constitution changes? >> answer, when did it become unconstitutional to deny gay couples the right to marry? >> the answer was that it was always unconstitutional. just like it was always unconstitutional to deny women the right to vote. just as it was always unconstitutional to have slavery. it was -- >> why did they change the constitution so women could vote then? >> they changed it because they realized that that was an unconstitutional thing. and women fought -- >> it wasn't consistent with our basic principles. >> you have to remember -- >> right. >> it wasn't that long ago president bush was arguing to change the constitution to write

discrimination into it for a reason. there's something apparently about this constitution they find offensive. >> what do you make of the answer by ted oellson, making ts case? he said, it was constitutional when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is characteristic of individuals they cannot control. trent lott saying, you have to make a decision. decide whether you're gay or straight. >> it used to be called a disease. >> yeah. >> we've come a long way toward understanding what, you know, who people are and what they are. and as we -- >> okay. tough, you guys are both political on this regard. you're always political. no, you are. i'm not knocking you. it's your profession. if you get a narrow ruling that says, prop 8 has to go, it's unconstitutional because of the children, because it's already been -- those people have already been ruled eligible to marry, you can't take back that right. okay? don't get the eight, nine states. don't get the 50 states. where does this take this case in the future? >> that means by late june

people can legally get married in the state of california which is significant. >> an eighth of the country. >> that in and of itself -- >> gay people move to california for sure. >> potentially. also it creates another case law and then invariably, this is going to be the challenge for this court. there's going to be other cases that ill invariably make their way to the supreme court. >> this is progress? >> we did two things. the reason we brought this case was to do two things. one was to prove that prop 8 was unconstitution unconstitutional. the second thing was to use this as an educational time. an educational moment to let people know that's why lance black who won an oscar for "milk" won a play called "eight" based on the proceedings that happened in that district court. and if you look at that play, and you -- the more and more you know about the issue, the more and more we see the needle swing. when we started, we were in the 40s. now we're at 58% with people

under the age of 30. >> that's profound. >> 81% believe gays should be allowed to marry. >> it's not right or left anymore. >> as we all argue, these are progressive, and in the end the liberals win. thank you, rob reiner. thank you, governor. we call you governor. coming up, why gay marriage advocates can't lose. they can win the case at the supreme court or lose it and make the defeats a rallying cry for the gay rights movement. remember, roe v. wade did more for the movement than the other side. issues like gay marriage, gun and immigration have been wedge issues against democrats, look what's happening now. democrats are using those very same issues to divide republicans. if congressman steve king of iowa is worried about losing on the cultural issue of gay marriage, he's got a ready solution for another issue. immigration. build a chinese wall, he says, from texas to california. if the chinese can do it, hundreds of years ago, if not thousands, he figures we can do it now. great idea, and a new idea, steve. finally, let me finish with

hillary clinton's inevitability and what it means for both parties. and this is "hardball." the place for politics. card thau 5% cash back at restaurants? generous. get the new it card at discover.com and sign up for 5% cashback at restaurants now through march. and we got onesies. sometimes miracles get messy. so we use tide free. no perfumes or dyes for her delicate skin. brad. not it. not it.

just kidding. that's our tide. what's yours? so which way does the roberts court lean ideologic ideologically? depends who you ask. nearly half of conservatives in a new pew poll says the court is liberal. wow. another four in ten call it middle of the road. only 9% of conservatives say the court is conservative. wow. anyway, among progressives, just the opposite. nearly half of self-described liberals say the roberts court is conservative. three in ten say it's middle of the road. 15% call the court liberal. must be a pretty good court. everybody thinks it's on the other side. we'll be right back. [ male announcer ] what are happy kids made of?

bikes and balloons, and noodles on spoons. a kite, a breeze, a dunk of grilled cheese. catches and throws, and spaghettio's. a wand, some wings, soup with good things. sidewalks and doodles and wholesome noodles. puddles and pails and yes, puppy dog tails. for a lunch like this, there's a hug and a kiss. because that's what happy kids are made of. campbell's. it's amazing what soup can do.

now sandy and i would like to introduce you to our son, two of our sons, spencer and elliot perry. >> hello, my name is spencer perry. this my twin brother, elliot perry. we're two of chris and sandy's

very, very proud sons. on behalf of myself, and my twin brother, i just want to say how incredibly proud we are of our parents. we love them. we love our family. and we look forward to the day when we will be treated equally just like our neighbors' families. thank you so much. >> that's pretty good. welcome back to "hardball." today the plaintiffs in hollingsworth, perry v. perry, more commonly known as the prop 8 case, showed a family rooted in same-sex marriage always looks like. it was impossible to polimisz t love those two kids had for their parents, mothers. political movements in reaction to them. for example, three key supreme court rulings in the 1950s, '60s and '70s had significant influence in building today's republican coalition. brown v. board of education in 1954. civil rights decision helped shift the south to the republican party. the 1962 supreme court decision banning organized prayer in public schools sparked the creation of the moral majority.

and roe v. wade, of course, in 1972 helped push cultural conservatives to the republican side. given that history, the supreme court decides on prop 8, the defense of marriage act as well, profound political implications stretching far beyond gays and lesbians who want to marry. let's talk to you about that. suppose court comes out with a narrow decision. looks like they're headed toward basically shooting down, chopping down, getting rid of prop 8. you can get married in california if you're the same sex. what's that going to -- is that going to energize the right? >> yeah, i think that so many people on the right have already moved into the pro-marriage equality camp that i think that that number of folks -- >> who are these people? >> senator rob portman -- >> you're naming one or two. come on. so many on the right. >> a brief signed they filed with the supreme court. >> which republican candidate last time was for same-sex marriage? >> none of them --

>> which one in history? >> mitt romney i guess at one point in massachusetts was for marriage equality then he was against it. >> see my point? >> yeah. i think the thing is the party is still shifting. whether it starts at the top or starts at the bottom. my home state of new york, four republican state senators came out in favor of marriage equality, helped us pass it two years ago. >> how many republican senators are there in the legislature in albany? >> albany, they're the majority. 30-plus i think. >> they got a little boost from andrew. >> folks working together. >> bottom line here, you're for marriage equality. >> absolutely. >> you don't think the republican party, for example, on their platform next time, when they put a candidate out there, whether it's rand paul or anybody, it could be chris christie, do you think they'll take a position of supportive or somewhat fudging the issue? >> i'm hopeful, i'm hopeful that they will. >> that's true. what's it mean politically? to you think they will? >> i think eventually they will. that's the direction they're

moving. >> 2016. >> 2016 is a tough call. it's hard to look down the road. if the court rules that way, if more states continue -- we're very close in illinois, rhode island, minnesota, delaware. >> who would you recommend the next republican presidential candidate, he or she, once they're on the platform, nominee, should they support marriage equality? is it smart to echo the democratic nominee, if it's hillary clinton, has already done it? >> when you look at the age demograph demographics. >> 2016. >> they're moving up. folks in favor of marriage equality are sticking around. >> do you think this will be a debating issue? how frequently it was recently. 19 -- i'm sorry, i keep saying 19. 20. 2008, 2004. 2004, ohio lost by john kerry. because of a big ballot initiative on the ballot at that time. the voters were being asked to fight to come out for anti same-sex marriage ban. it killed him in that state. >> just until recently, ohio's

numb numbers when it cane to marriage equality were under 50%. in the past few months the polls coming out of there are showing it over 50%. >> it's moving. >> it's moving. a big ground game in ohio. a lot of folks working on the issue. >> you're a great promoter. i wish you well. i'm not sure you're right about the republican party. i miss you well. today on "morning joe," wallace, a former communications director for president george w. bush pointed out as you did, brian, the generational challenge faced by republicans on the issue of gay marriage. nicole supports gay marriage, herself. let's listen to her. >> there were a lot of alarming things that happened at cpac. the one happy thing, they went around trying to find young conservatives who were against gay marriage and they couldn't find any. i mean, even the youngest most ravid most devoted conservatives see this as an equal rights issue. >> ralph reid, founder and

chairman of the faith and freedom coalition. ralph, thank you for coming on. >> you bet, chris, good to be with you again. >> i'm setting it up what looks to be the direction of the court. a narrow decision. perhaps just dealing with california. perhaps positively for the pro-choice or the pro-same-sex marriage community. how do people on the conservative side, how will you react to that? what will be your plan? >> well, if that were to happen, and, of course, this is not my first rodeo. i know it's not yours. adon't lay down a lot of bets on oral arguments. it's hard to interpret how the court is going to rule based on the oral arguments. if they were to do that, chris, i think it would be profoundly disappointing. the people of california voted not once, but twice that they wanted marriage defined between a man and a woman. i think this kind of issue, as we saw with the very polarizing and highly divisive issue of roe v. wade is best left to people and elected representatives.

it's best left to the congress and various legislatures. if the people of california want to change their constitution, they can do it at the ballot box. i don't think the supreme court should intervene. if it were to happen, it would not have any effect in any of the other states. let's be clear. 86% of the american people live in states today that define marriage as between a man and a woman. this is the majority position for the american people. >> well, what you really do understand as well as i do is the way that there's repercussions. the old story was the supreme court follows the election results. the election results often follow the supreme court. people react. most voters vote negatively. they don't like things, they get out there and vote against them. will you be leading it, perhaps, an effort to rectify what you see as a wrong decision? >> well, i think as you pointed out in the earlier segment, chris, it's not so much i want to do it, but the reality is when the supreme court gets over its skis and when it tries to be the one that is the pregenetor

of significant social change rather than allow it to take change incrementally and gradually with back and forth, maybe with different answers in different states and different communities, i think the problem is whether it was the backlash against engel v.vatelli, the school prayer case you mentioned earlier. there was a very interesting cover story on "time" magazine's cover a few weeks ago that pointed out that the roe v. wade actually hurt the pro-choice cause because it's led to this very strong pro-life movement that is restricting abortion on demand in the various legislatures. so i think -- >> i understand ginsburg -- from an interly different angle, politically, i think, she agrees with you. look, you're not going to come out against all landmark decisions. >> no. >> you wouldn't say, for example, we didn't need the separate but equal decision in the brown case in '54. these states were way behind with this separate but equal attitude. didn't that have to happen? don't we need leadership from the top on occasion? >> we do, but let's remember

that brown v. board was not leading. it was following by 90 years the 14th amendment of the constitution that said that african-americans couldn't be denied equal protection under the law. as you know, there was virtually no enforcement of that by the department of justice after that. so the court had to step in, but even with that court opinion, as it is rightfully honored by all americans today, the fact is, chris, that the real progress, the real progress on breaking down jim crow and creating more equality for men and women of all color, was the civil rights act of '64, voting rights act of '65, and the fair housing act of '68. the reality where the rubber met the road was in passing legislation in legislative chambers and getting them signed by the president. >> you know what, it's interesting you argue this. i think you make a good point. although we may disagree on a lot of these issues, i think we

do. i think it's always bet westete the public will coincides with the right. i agree with you on those cases. the civil rights act and voting rights act were powerful because they had the power behind them of both political parties, of lyndon johnson and heavy support by the republican party, by the way, at the time. they were amazingly influential. i also think sometimes the supreme court has to get ahead and get ahead early as it did with these cases. thank you, ralph reed, for coming on "hardball." up next, steve king's great wall of china. this guy, steve king, is something, isn't he? he wants to build a great wall of china along the rio grande. anyway, this is "hardball." the place for politics. [ male announcer ] you are a business pro.

governor of getting it done. you know how to dance... with a deadline. and you...rent from national. because only national lets you choose any car in the aisle... and go. you can even take a full-size or above, and still pay the mid-size price. this is awesome. [ male announcer ] yes, it is, business pro. yes, it is. go national. go like a pro. a talking car. but i'll tell you what impresses me. a talking train. this ge locomotive can tell you exactly where it is, what it's carrying, while using less fuel. delivering whatever the world needs, when it needs it. ♪

after all, what's the point of talking if you don't have something important to say? ♪ has oats that can help lower cholesterol? and it tastes good?

sure does! wow. it's the honey, it makes it taste so... well, would you look at the time... what's the rush? be happy. be healthy. (announcer) scottrade knows our and invest their own way. with scottrade's smart text, i can quickly understand my charts, and spend more time trading. their quick trade bar lets my account follow me online so i can react in real-time. plus, my local scottrade office is there to help. because they know i don't trade like everybody. i trade like me. i'm with scottrade. (announcer) scottrade. voted "best investment services company." back to "hardball." now to the sideshow.

part of the post election republican autopsy released last week by rnc chair reince priebus about immigration reform. bottom line, republicans need to stop saying things minority populations find to be out of touch or worse plain offensive. for example, don't compare the fence we could put up at the border to the great wall of china. iowa congressman, steve king, have at it. >> we heard the arguments against the fence. people said, well, you can't build a 2,000 mile long fence. and as if somehow that would be too much of an engineering marvel. i've been over there to take a look at the great wall of china that was built more than 2,000 years ago. and that's 5,500 miles long. you can march armies down the top of it. the japanese did that. building a fence is not that hard, so i thought i'll show you how to do it. if it's too complicated for our public policy people to get our mind around. >> not so lucky for reince priebus, we could see a lot more of steve king. king told "the des moines

register" yesterday, i have never wanted to be the guy who looked back and said woulda, coulda, shoulda. this is the most positive kind of opportunity for a senate seat i'm ever likely to see." up next, once upon a time it was republicans who used wedge issues like gay marriage, guns and immigration against democrats. now the democrats are the ones using those issues to divide republicans. that's ahead right here on "hardball." you're watching it. the place for politics. can your longwear makeup last 'til five o'clock?

it will if it's new outlast stay fabulous foundation. it's a primer, concealer and foundation in one for all day flawless skin. new outlast stay fabulous from easy, breezy, beautiful covergirl.

but we can still help you see your big picture. with the fidelity guided portfolio summary,

you choose which accounts to track and use fidelity's analytics to spot trends, gain insights, and figure out what you want to do next. all in one place. i'm meredith stoddard and i helped create the fidelity guided portfolio summary. it's one more innovative reason serious investors are choosing fidelity. now get 200 free trades when you open an account. i'm bertha coombs with cnbc market wrap. dow jones industrial average reaching yet another all-time high. gaining almost 112 points. to close at 14,559. close but no cigar for the s&p 500. within two points of its record. finishing at 1563. nasdaq gaining picking up 17.

conference board reports consumer confidence has fallen eight point this month. and the s&p case-shiller home price index reports the biggest annual increase in home prices. meantime, in 6 1/2 years. that's it from cnbc. now back to "hardball." welcome back to "hardball." culture wedges have long been used by republicans as we know as wedges to divide democrats. in 2004, for instance, republicans placed a gay marriage ban on the ballot in ohio as i said to help get the conservative vote out and it worked. president bush won ohio by two points. as a result, he won that election in 2000. but now, he won it after the supreme court helped him. now it's the democrats' turn to use wedges, actually, 2004. wedges issues against republicans. politico reports today "the culture wars are back but this time with a significant twist. the left is picking the fights and for the most part enjoying

being on the right side of public opinion." five years after barack obama warned that anxious voters are just clinging to their guns and religion, wedge issues are cuts differently. more to the liking of democrats." wow. i've got our "hardball" strategyist here tonight to argue this. former rnc chair, michael steele, an msnbc political analyst. steve elendorf, a strategist who worked for dick gephardt, john kerry and hillary clinton. none of them actually won in the end. i'm just kidding. you're a very well respected consultant here and leader. let me ask you this. how do you think these issues, democrats are going to use these issues? can they bash a republican being against same-sex? >> it's young people, 81%, young evangelicals are for gay marriage, catholics are for gay marriage. >> conservatives. >> young conservatives are for gay marriage. it's moving and in the right districts in a lot of places it's going to be a big problem. >> how's your party react to that at the convention? do you fudge the issue? i can't see a candidate saying, and we're not going to have any

of this damn same-sex marriage either. >> that would make your day if they did. you're not going to have that. i was amused by karl rove's musing on the weekend that he could see the 2016 republican nominee, you know, expressing openly his support for gay marriage. i don't believe -- >> that's funny because rove ran that ohio campaign. 2004. >> right. exactly. i don't believe at this point that that is necessarily going to be the case. my caution is this, to the democrats. not that i'm one to caution democrats too much. but, you know, there's one thing to see a poll that says 58% support this, 80% appoint that. that's not necessarily translated into votes yet. and let's just see how this plays out in a ballot box. remember, state legislatures are acting in a way that's consistent with what they're hearing and seeing from their constituencies in their districts. so let's just be a little bit cautious. i take jonathan capehart, our colleague, to heart when he

says, you know, let's be cautious in our optimism and enthusiasm here because the supreme court is one thing. >> i agree. >> the ballot box is something else. >> because as threatened a the conservatives get in this country, i mean threatened culturally, racially, generationally, everything. they feel more and more the circle the wagon mentality has taken over. they vote. what happens if the party, if your party is successful in establishing its high ground politically on this issue but you scare the low ground people to the point where they all show up next time and they win? >> i think the intensity on this issue is actually much more on the side of gay and lesbian and marriage equality. i think there's a lot of intensity. it's not just that gay people think gay people ought to get married. >> is it a voting issue for them? >> i think it's a values issue. i think there's a lot of people, a lot of women who look at republicans who are on the wrong side of this issue and say they don't share my values. >> let's go to fun. now we're going to have dessert. cultural issues are nothing

compared to the clintons. former president bill clinton. yesterday clinton endorsed wendy out in los angeles for the mayor's race. he noted her crisis management skills in the early '90s while working at hud during clinton administration. it didn't help the opponent, eric garsetti, a big supporter of barack obama in 2008 against hillary clinton. i think bill noticed. the clintons have long memories. this is not the first time bill backed the democrat in a tough primary with bill or hillary ties. for example, if recent congressional primary races, he endorsed mark kritz in pennsylvania, bill pascerll in new jersey. endorsed sean patrick maloney in new york. the race for pennsylvania attorney general he endorsed clinton supporter kathleen kane over obama supporter murphy. he's rewarding old friends and punishing old rivals. >> we have to have more loyalty in politics. he is supporting the people who helped him. >> to what effect? >> in a lot of cases he's winning. even if he's not winning he's send a signal. >> why is he doing this? >> because he cares.

he cares about -- >> he's setting up the battle. >> he's setting up the battle for hillary in about 18 months or less. he's making sure that everyone understands exactly they're coming prepared and the thing about the clichntons, they don' forget. they have long memories on this. they will exact their pound of flesh, whether $1 million or $10 million, you will pay, my friend. >> this is where it's tough. this is where it's hardball. their attitude, fair enough, it works, i guess. you're with us or against us. if you don't come out for us, for example, altmyer was neutral in that race. didn't help him with them. the clintons want you with them. if you're not with them, you're just dead meat. your thoughts, steve? >> he's the most popular politician in america. >> why don't you answer my question? are you afraid of him? you are. you're squirming. >> i love bill clinton. i love hillary clinton. >> everything they do is right? >> he's a democrat strategist who wants work in 2016. >> you're made of rubber. it's unbelievable. anyway, as a republican expert, what do you think of this

playing tough? way the clintons are playing it? they basically probably are going to win the nomination if they played softball. >> yeah, look, i admire -- >> secretary clinton. >> i think it's hardball politics. i think it's smart politics for the clintons to take all the goodwill that's been engendered as a result of -- >> what about loving your enemy? >> loving your enemy? >> you're a seminarian. what about going around saying, i want you, too? >> chris, you're not looking for that kind of blessing in this situation. this is hardball politics. it's real -- >> is it smart? >> i think it's smart. i think the clintons have seen themselves be burned. i think it's smart politics for them to lay down their markers now and see right now who's with them and who's against them. even though the field has not even begun to form. whether it's cuomo or -- >> let's go to why they might calibrate it up a bit, escalate from the beginning. i think hillary clinton, secretary clinton, former senator clinton, former first lady clinton looks her best when she's talking issue. children, education. things like that.

i don't think she's especially great at the hammer and tongue of politics. the nasty stuff. >> her husband's better. >> yeah. so maybe what they want to do is shorten the field to one or two opponents. not give her any threat. make sure martin o'malley doesn't run against them, make sure joe biden doesn't run against them. run against a couple skinny guys who don't mean anything. that's the plan. if bill's tough, i'm arguing, hillary doesn't have to be so tough. >> he's sending a signal -- >> can you answer that question? is that -- >> bill should be the tough guy. he's doing the right thing. >> look, you have -- >> you know what was once said, if you have a dog, you don't have to bark. >> you have the right moniker. he's the advance man. >> thank you, guys. michael steele. up next, we all know we live in a polarized time today. you know what? it used to be worse. wait until you hear about the wars before world war ii. we're going to talk about that. lindbergh. charles lindbergh. a lot of people are already

already listening to that. aluminum production in south africa, and the aerospace industry in the u.s.? at t. rowe price, we understand the connections of a complex, global economy. it's just one reason over 75% of our mutual funds beat their 10-year lipper average. t. rowe price. invest with confidence. request a prospectus or summary prospectus with investment information, risks, fees and expenses to read and consider carefully before investing. ♪ 'cause germs don't stick on me ♪ [ female announcer ] band-aid brand has quiltvent technology with air channels to let boo boos breathe. [ giggles ] [ female announcer ] quiltvent technology, only from band-aid brand. use with neosporin first aid antibiotic.

well, president obama's made history today in naming a new director of the secret service. julia pierson the first woman in american history to hold that post. pierson is a 30-year vet in the agency. his choice of her signals the president's intention to change what has been a male-dominated culture recently marked by scandal, you know, back in cardiana? we'll be right back.

we're back. some people say we live in a in time of very bitter feuding between right and left on everything from cultural issues like gay marriage to tax and spending. in the months leading up to pearl harbor before world war ii the country experienced one of the most divisive periods in our history. it's chronicled in the new book "those angry days." at the time franklin roosevelt was quietly moving towards war sending destroyers to aid britain and signing a bill into law that required men to sign up

for the draft. here's lindburg in october 1940 on the mutual broadcasting network. his plea here is for us to stay out of the war. >> the doctrine that we must enter the wars of europe in order to defend america will be fatal to our nation if we follow it. when men are called upon to fight and die for their country, there must not be even the remotest question of foreign influence. >> there he is. foreign influence. that's where he got into trouble. because he talked about the only people that wanted -- it was the madison square garden speech, right? >> right. >> he says the only people that want us to fight are the british, roosevelt administration and jews. not american jews. not jewish americans. made them sound like some foreign group. certainly his political crime. >> i think that was his political downfall, that speech basically did him in in terms of the american people and how they viewed him. >> the respectability.

>> absolutely. >> roosevelt, franklin roosevelt who i've come to admire more as i've gotten older. i grew up in a republican family. my dad always had these strange views. i just wonder if we could have gotten through the '30s and '40s without fdr. he was pro-british. >> he was very pro-british. i'm not sure he actually wanted america to fgo to war in terms f sending troops. there's no question he wanted to save england. but he was somewhat cautious and hesitant in those two years, 1939 to 1941, that i write about. he wasn't quite as bold in that period in terms of foreign policy as he was in domestic policy in the early '30s. >> one of my heroes on the republican side has always been, because i like his style, wendell wilkin. he gave roosevelt the best fight he ever had in '40. in your book, beautiful things about kiwilkie. he didn't try cheap shots.

he did wondrously when he got the nomination after winning it in philadelphia. gave all the assistance he could to national unity. >> it was incredible. he actually did what he thought was right for the country. and he stood up for the best interest of the country instead of, you know, for himself and for partisan advantage. i mean, the republicans, the republican leaders hated him because of that. because of his support of roosevelt. >> he's like chris christie today, right? >> even more so. absolutely more so. i mean, he truly believed we had to save england. and he didn't care if it was franklin roosevelt's policy or not. he was going to support it. >> let me ask you about the feeling at the time. did you have people who really were yelling at each other at this time, people that really -- these big rallies, american first rallies, nobody realizes it today. before pearl harbor, people screaming, we will not go to war. we're being pushed into war. on the other hand, jewish people perhaps especially, people worried, liberals, scared to death of what hitler was up to. he'd begun to do it. made the long knives and everything. it has already been evidenced he

was heading toward real -- what do you call it, genocide. >> there was e nor r moonormous divisiveness in this country. it reminds me of today, "these angry days." >> if we hadn't been attacked by the japanese in december of '41 would we have gone to war? >> that's a really good question. i'm not sure we would have gone to war immediately. i think we would have been drawn into the war eventually. >> how about if germany hadn't declared war on us? would we have declared war on them? >> i don't think so. again, not right at that point. roosevelt held off. you know, some of his advisers wanted him to declare war on germany along with japan. but he said no. and so we waited for three very long days until hitler declared war on us. >> thank god. >> yes, thank god. exactly. >> hitler, thank god he was stupid as well as evil. i mean, to do that when we could have avoided a war with us is just -- i don't even want to think about it. >> it was the stupidest thing he did in the whole war.

>> i think invading russia was up there, too. he's the worst. thank you so much. lynne olson, you are a great writer. this person can write beautifully and make you love history. the book is called "those angry days." it's what we fight about when we really have something to fight about. when we return, let me finish with the inevident blt of hillary clinton. kind of a jinx. i don't intend it to be. how she's going to make each party act differently in the next couple years. you're watching "hardball," the place for politics. zap. it's our fastest and easiest way to get you into your car. it's just another way you'll be traveling at the speed of hertz. the people of bp made a commitment to the gulf., and every day since, we've worked hard to keep it. today, the beaches and gulf are open for everyone to enjoy. we've shared what we've learned, so we can all produce energy more safely. bp's also committed to america.

we support nearly two-hundred-fifty thousand jobs and invest more here than anywhere else. we're working to fuel america for generations to come. our commitment has never been stronger. ♪ but will it stay fabulous 'til 5 o'clock? it will if it's new outlast stay fabulous foundation from covergirl. what makes it so flawless hour after hour? primer, concealer and foundation, all in one. get the longwear that survives the 9 to 5, fabulously. new outlast stay fabulous foundation from easy, breezy, beautiful covergirl. mommy's having a french fry. yes she is, yes she is. [ bop ] [ male announcer ] could've had a v8. 100% vegetable juice, with three of your daily vegetable servings in every little bottle.

try e-mail marketing from constantcontact. it's the fastest, easiest way to create great-looking custom e-mails that bring customers through your door. sign up for your free trial today at constantcontact.com/try. otherworldly things. but there are some things i've never seen before. this ge jet engine can understand 5,000 data samples per second. which is good for business. because planes use less fuel, spend less time on the ground and more time in the air. suddenly, faraway places don't seem so...far away. ♪

let me finish tonight with this. i have to tell you, it is something watching this 2016 presidential campaign get under way. don't you love watching bill clinton doing his thing? there he is out there shaping the battlefield, rewarding old supporters, burying old opponents, sounding the bugle. get on board if you can. get out of the way if you can't. james carville said here this morning on msnbc there's never been such a prohibitive candidate for president so early on as hillary clinton is today. that may be a bit of an overstatement. you've got to figure george washington was a pretty good bet after defeating the british. not off by much. my sense is the mere prospect of hillary being president is enough to drive the republicans helter-skelter. running in all sorts of directions. paul, bush, rubio, christie. each of whom represents a totally different route for the party. don't underestimate rand paul. just the kind of candidates parties do run when they're up against someone like hillary clinton.

when republicans couldn't beat lyndon johnson after the kennedy assassination they ran barry goldwater. when democrats couldn't beat richard nixon they ran george mcgovern. not that they didn't believe in those men.